For most of us, McCain lost us before the campaign began, but that didn't make us do something silly. I'm glad how it's now working out, but that's a once per 72 years miracle that you know damn well you didn't anticipate. Like many, you never would have voted against the first black President. The good thing is you will never have to again.

McCain was known in DC as a easily angered jerk. The way his campaign treated Palin was obvious. McCain used her for his purposes and then threw her into the trash. She was a gutsy and intelligent woman to have survived that treatment and thrived until McCain needed her endorsement to survive in office.

(The Crypto Jew)That having been said…I wasn’t going to vote, UNTIL Palin was the Veep. I’m not convinced that McCain as POTUS would have been better than Obama. I just don’t believe Dubya ever would say such a thing in front of a foreign delegation.

It's interesting that the FT publishes this now. I don't think they could do so without Bush's consent. If so, Bush is effectively retroactively endorsing Obama... Maybe Bush is suggesting to us Americans to take another look at Obama and his policies? Maybe Bush, considering all that he went through, thinks Obama is doing a pretty good job? I wonder if that's something readers should keep in mind as they devour Bush's book.

I'm not surprised. McCain was completely unfit by temperament, training, and ability to be POTUS. He is (was) a Drama Queen, uninterested in anything except foreign policy and defense issues, and full of outdated "bear any price bear any burden" USA Internationalism/Imperialism.

Had McCain been elected we'd be at war with Iran, in a cold war in Russia, and be spending an additional $500 Billion a year on defense.

Meanwhile, Lieberman would be AG and Sotomeyer and Kagan would still be on the SCOTUS 'cause McCain never cared about all that "silly social issue stuff". We'd have Amnesty and a healthcare bill with 75% of the bad Democrat provisions. And instead of 48 Republican senators, we'd have 38, and we'd have 235 Democrat house members.

The problem is we wouldn't have the mess, particularly stimulus, ZeroCare and Government Motors, we've got now. A lot of people who didn't want to soil their patties for McCain (and he wasn't my first choice) and stayed home, guaranteeing The Zero won, nonetheless give Ann a hard time for her vote.

Damned hypocritical.

Dead Julius said...

It's interesting that the FT publishes this now. I don't think they could do so without Bush's consent. If so, Bush is effectively retroactively endorsing Obama

Of course he is, the choice of None of the Above being metaphysically impossible.

I simply don't believe this ever happened. The head of the Republican Party would glibly offer to have endorsed Obama if he had just asked? The guy who had just spent the previous year campaigning on what a horrible human being Bush was?

Obama has the proverbial snowball's chance come 2012 unless this new republican Congress screws the pooch, and the GOP runs yet another not-ready-for-primetime candidate.

Which McCain never was.

McCain makes Al Gore look all warm and fuzzy. He would have made Michael Dukakis seem a reasonable choice by comparison. He makes John Kerry look decisive and commanding...on a good day. He might have handed Hillary Clinton a near-landslide, had libtards not decided that "Black" still trumped "cheated-on-unfairly-maligned-White-Woman" on their list of Politically-Correct Sacred Cows.

As for Bush actually endorsing Obama (either in 2008, or in retrospect) I would imagine that is more in the vein of giving back to McCain some of what he dished out on Bush (i.e. Gang of 14, SC primaries, and so forth). It would have been personal.

If this fantasy conversation had ever taken place in real life, perhaps.

However, given EVERYTHING we know - and have come to know - about Bush, does anyone SERIOUSLY believe that he would completely throw over his entire party and essentially hand the keys to the White House to a Democrat (ANY Democrat) in order to settle a personal score?

Again, I have to ask: REALLY???

This thing must be rotten, because it's only smelling worse and worse over time.

Rightwing bloggers could have easily stopped Obama; I told them how a month before the election. Instead of following my advice, they kept following the elusive rabbit. For instance, dunderhead "Ace" kept hoping for a babysitting scandal (no really) instead of encouraging smarter people to engage Obama in debate about his policies on video. That plan could have stopped Obama, yet r/w bloggers not only ignored it, but I even got smearing pushback from cowardly anonymous commenters on their sites. In retrospect, it's a darn good thing Obama won: like it says above we'd be at war with Iran and Palin would be a heartbeat away from the presidency. If the rightwing had a brain they could have started a mainstream, pro-American opposition to Obama; instead they went even crazier and more stupid.

Because of that link, I fully expect to be smeared by the brainless, lying teapartiers. That's what they do: they're too mentally and emotionally challenged to present even a glimmer of a valid argument. But, take a look at it and recall that those same people said nothing - or even supported him - as he, among other things allowed 5 million new illegal aliens to stay here. That's what the teapartiers support; they were and still are fans of something who, among other things, pledged to push amnesty to the Mexican government and waved a Mexican flag in a campaign video while spouting reconquista nonsense. Bush is one of them, although most of them aren't quite at his quisling level.

Wacko -- If you are so smart, how come you keep appealing to other people to do your work for you? How can a person with talent and political acumen have such little influence that he has to make his appeals in a little old blogger blog?

Lonewacko...i understand the criticisms you made of Bush that and agree with several of them. But where did you come up with your accusation that Dumber Than Dirt, Tea Partiers support Bush? That is just wrong. You need repeat the course in enemy identification.

I like to refer to your ilk as "Wraparound Republicans", because you lean so far to the right that you begin to sound like leftists.

The greatest fear of this sort of republican is that a Tea Party might actually cause the American political system to deal with the issues that government actually CAN affect, like busted budgets, controlling the growth of, or even dismantling (dare we dream?),the Entitlement State, and forget all about them burning Social issues like:

1. Why isn't there a federal police force empowered to peer into people's bedroom windows to ensure they aren't engaged in sexual activity banned by Scripture.

2. How come no one's frog-marched the abortionists to the ovens yet?

3. How come I can't own an unregistered flamethrower or RPG launcher?

4. Why aren't we executing homosexuals in the public square, like they did in Olden Days?

5. How can manuever the US Government into bringing about the Rapture so I can get out of paying my cable bill?

Tea Partiers aren't DUMB, they just have different, and much more pertinent and immediate, concerns that neither Right nor Left have addressed adequately, or even at all.

Matthew -- Don't forget: Why can't we pay to round up every illegal immigrant, jail them, feed them in jail, process them in court, provide for their civil rights, bus them to the border, and have agreements with other countries to take our problems away?

Oh, I have problems with immigration, too, Seven. I haven't been able to find a decent job in my field for the last six years because if the work isn't being outsourced, corporations are hitting the State Dept up for even more H1-B's who undercut wages.

And that's LEGAL immigration. Don't get me started with what illegal immigration has done to my hometown.

The Buchanan wing, does, however, have two major points in it's favor; they're right on immigration, and they're right that Free Trade is no such thing, and destroys the economic base of this country.

I get it to. Or got it. Old crazy and erratic geezer and a young and crazy illiterate fundie spokesbot. Wasn't a hard choice there. I'm sure that platform won't change at all in 2012 to appease the crazy and increasingly erratic base.

Matthew -- I think you are a warp-around Republican. I do like the term, though.

I don't dispute that illegal immigration is a huge problem. Build a wall. But don't imagine that we have the resources or the will to deport millions of people. It's just not going to happen.

As for free trade, I'm for it because you can't grow an economy without it and because you'll have all manner of strife and war without it. You cannot seriously be for economic freedom but try to tie it to geography. That's silly.

Hold on a sec, Seven; if you believe that we have "Free" Trade (in theliteral sense), you're seriously mistaken.

"Free Trade" has come to mean that we can send American wealth and jobs to Mexico, China, and India, so that Wal-Mart, Citigroup and IBM can pump up profits at the expense of their fellow citizens.

After all, why pay an American Automation Programmer six-figures plus bennies, when some guy in Calcutta will do it for a pennies on the dollar, doesn't ask for a 401(k) or medical insurance, and be happy to get it. And if you've decided that you've made a mistake by laying off your skilled workforce; you simply pick up the phone and get Senator Douchebag and Congressman Dingleberry to lobby the State Department for a few more H1-B's from Taiwan, who will take even less just so that they can apply for US Citizenship -- and continue to work for lower wages -- just as soon as the contract expires.

That's the part of "Free Trade" that sucks. In the meantime, JP Morgan can continue to pour all that "profit" they gained not by producing superior goods and services, but by screwing their workforce and squeezing every last penny from their customers, into "Emerging Markets" which can't afford to buy their products in the first place, but which have enormous populations who one day MIGHT be able to afford them.

why pay an American Automation Programmer six-figures plus bennies, when some guy in Calcutta will do it for a pennies on the dollar, doesn't ask for a 401(k) or medical insurance, and be happy to get it

Yes.

Incidentally, you aren't really arguing about free trade. Free trade is what killed General Motors because Honda made a better, cheaper car.

No, what you are arguing is that American business owners should be compelled with threats of prison or fines to pay American workers too much money.

Global Warming is anaturally-occurring phenomenon that has taken place several times in Geologic History, and will do so again, and again, regardless of how many internal combustion engines there are.

The only difference, of course, is human activity in that human record. Humans weren't pumping billion of tons of pollutants into the atmosphere each day. Earth is a closed system, not unlike your fish aquarium. Duh.

No, Seven, what I'm saying is that American business has found it easier to exploit the huge discrepencies in wages and living standards in nations like China and India.

From a business standpoint (simple reading of balance sheets) this makes perfect sense, I agree. It doesn't make sense, and is grossly unfair, when you stop to consider that it's helping to destroy the economic base of this country, and is, in the long-term, unsustainable. You can talk all you want about 1.3 billion Chinese customers, but if there's no American market to sell to, you're probably going to go broke...eventually.

When you undercut wages and send your capital investment overseas, you're ensuring that Americans will eventually not be able to afford your products/services.

The wealth being shipped out of this country in the name if Free Trade simply cannot be replaced by foreign investment. The expertise being lost because one profession after another is being phased out of existance cannot be replaced easily, should economic conditions suddenly shift.

I'm not against profit at all (I worked on Wall Street for 20+ years, and it was good for me for a very long time), only against an economic policy which hurts us. I don't wish to see anyone "punished", I just would like folks to be more circumspect about what they do, and how they do it.

It's interesting that the FT publishes this now. I don't think they could do so without Bush's consent.

They couldn't publish totally made-up BS without his consent? The very fact that it is totally made-up BS guarantees that they would not even seek his consent.

Not only is such a comment totally out of Bush's presidential character, in that it is demeaning of the office and the democratic process, but Obama is and was totally contrary to every fiber of Bush's political philosophy.

Moreover, it is totally out of Bush's personal character to hold a grudge like that against Maverick McCain (who he had every reason and justification in the world to hold a grudge against for seeking to torpedo his presidency every day for eight years). If he could endure all of the Bushitler crap and not be fazed by any of it, you really think he's going to harbor a grievance against a petty guy like McCain? In fact, it was the other way around, with Capt. Queeg obsessing against Bush for more than eight years.

"The only difference, of course, is human activity in that human record. Humans weren't pumping billion of tons of pollutants into the atmosphere each day. Earth is a closed system, not unlike your fish aquarium. Duh."

No, but the Earth has not always been geologically stable (Volcanos produce more greenhouse gasses than automobiles, you know), has been hit by more extraterrestial objects than we know about (Closed system, indeed!), and it's magnetic poles have shifted more times than you've had hot dinners. Climate change has occurred on this planet many times, the most obvious example being the creaton of an oxygen atmosphere created by primordial creatures simply photosynthesizing.

Oh, and I forgot: NASA knows the Moon is receeding from the Earth at the rate of about 4 inches per year, and who the hell knows just what effect that has on tides, and hence, weather patters?

Mankind is incapable of "destroying the World", only Life As We Know It. And frankly, if we're going that route, I'd rather we started with Muslims and Tree-Huggers -- they really just hate their fellow human beings, after all.

The truth about Global Warming is that no scientist can make any definitive judgement because the number of variables is impossible to calculate, ormaybe even discover, and because the Universe (and all the myriad forces at work there) is a very strange place that we barely understand.

I would add here that British libel laws are much harsher than American libel laws. I don't know how or if they differentiate between Joe Schmoes and public figures, but that's something to take into consideration. British papers are probably somewhat more likely to be accurate because the libel environment there.

Like being petty, short-tempered, self-absorbed, arrogant and stupid? Those sorts of faults? And let's not forget that McCain spent the first six or so years of Bush's presidency fucking with him, either. That's why he was the media's little darling until he decided to run for President.

Oh, I voted for McCain anyway. But I know a lot of people with beliefs similar to me who held their noses and voted for Obama on the grounds that Obama *might* turn out not to be a worthless waste of sperm, whereas we already knew that McCain was.

Speaking of petty, you do not know this even happened. I doubt that it did. Considering the stuff people felt the need to put out there about Bush for all these years I take a lot of this with a grain of salt. If Bush was a petty man he would have spent years trashing the people who trashed him..and he did not.

Let us not forget, the Democrats won both the House and Senate. A McCain presidency would have resulted in divided government. McCain wouldn't have been able to do much of anything without the Democrats going along with it. Something that I don't think would have happened.

So those are the reasons that a "law prof" would support an ineligible Non Natural Born Citizen(his father was NEVER a citizen)?

Bush, Cheney, all of them, are traitors for allowing Obama to achieve the office...

No report on a SCOTUS case in conference challenging Obama's eligibility? No report about an Army Lt. Col. and surgeon (Lakin) challenging Obama's eligibility, being refused discovery and sent to court-martial?

My White House sources tell me that Rove put him up to this. The feeling was that if Bush endorsed Obama, McCain's victory would be assured. Plus historians would revise Bush's place in history and rank him just below Washington and Lincoln.